Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Strongly disagree

I am a permanent Bearsted resident I write to oppose the above proposed development in my area. Application Reference: POLICY C4S (008) – THE LODGE Site: Land at Water Lane, Bearsted Proposal: Gypsy/Traveller pitches including caravans, day rooms, and associated works 1. Introduction I am writing to object to the proposed development at Water Lane, Bearsted. The location is unsuitable for permanent Gypsy/Traveller pitches due to significant harm to the countryside, highway safety concerns, and conflict with established planning policies. 2. Harm to the Countryside & Character of Water Lane The site lies within open countryside and contributes to the rural character of Water Lane. The proposal would result in: • Urbanisation of a green rural area • Visual intrusion due to hardstanding, vehicles, day rooms, and lighting • Loss of openness contrary to Local Plan countryside protection policies The proposed landscaping is insufficient to offset the permanent change to the rural landscape. 3. Highway Safety Concerns Water Lane is a narrow rural road with: • No pavement for pedestrians • Existing pinch points and poor visibility • Already high traffic levels at peak times due to commuter routes and nearby school traffic The additional vehicle movements (cars, caravans, trailers) will increase danger for pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, and other road users. This conflicts with NPPF Section 9 regarding safe and suitable access. 4. Unsuitable Location / Poor Sustainability The site is not sustainable for residential use: • No safe pedestrian routes to Bearsted village or services • Limited access to shops, healthcare, and other everyday needs • Dependence on private vehicles • Poor access for emergency services due to road width and congestion This conflicts with both Local Plan sustainability objectives and PPTS guidance, which advises that Gypsy sites should not be in isolated rural locations away from services. 5. Drainage & Flooding Risks Parts of Water Lane are known to experience surface-water flooding. Introducing: • Hardstanding • Impermeable surfaces • Additional foul drainage needs … increases the risk of run-off and potential pollution without adequate mitigation. 6. Inadequate Infrastructure The local area already experiences pressure on: • School spaces • GP and healthcare capacity • Road network congestion • Rural utilities (water, waste, sewerage) The proposal would add to these pressures, and no clear mitigation has been provided. 7. Precedent for Unplanned Development Approving this application would: • Set a precedent for incremental, unauthorised or speculative development along Water Lane • Undermine the strategic planning and site allocation approach set out in the Maidstone Local Plan 8. Policy Conflicts The proposal conflicts with: • Local Plan Policy SP17 – protection of the countryside • DM15 / DM30 – design and protecting rural character • PPTS – suitability, sustainability, and environmental impact • NPPF – protecting valued landscapes and ensuring safe highway access The harm significantly outweighs the benefits. 9. Conclusion For the reasons stated above – including harm to the countryside, road safety concerns, poor sustainability, drainage issues, and conflict with key planning policies – I strongly object to the proposal at Water Lane and request that the application is refused.